Mencken v. Kroll

Though I found neither essay to be persuading, I believe that Kroll's carried more sentiment and would more likely be persuasive. Mencken writes in an condescending and admonishing tone that alienates most readers from the get go with his statement of the arguments he presents against the death penalty are "plainly too weak and need serious refutation. This argument also relies heavily on his extreme case of "kartharsis" and using it as a fallacious example of a sweeping generalization that everybody would feel safe if a death penalty with the convicts death and also as a faulty analogy, comparing the death penalty to a tack on the teachers chair.
However, Kroll subtly presents his case without ever revealing his true purpose. Kroll depicts the inhumanity of the death penalty through a personal example of witnessing a death by gas chamber being carried out. He relies heavily on a pathos argument, describing death of his friend in detail with his statement of "[the convict's] head began to roll and his eyes closed, then opened again. His head dropped, then came up with an abrupt jerk, and rolled some more. It was grotesque and hideous...". I believe that using more pathos, such as in Kroll's argument, was more effective that of the fallacious logos found in Mencken's argument.